Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Wolf

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 21,436 posts (22,289 including aliases). 12 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 24 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 21,436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*doggie paddles ever closer to the four star dingy*

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The caravan vanity can be used to let you use bluff to make a dayjob check.

"Escaped slaves! well officer, I hope you catch them. Gotta get these turnips to market asap, you know how they start to want to breat.. erm. Go rotten. "

Shadow Lodge

Dominate animal: There's nothing you can do. Your animal is a meat puppet for the caster. You can hope that you treated it well enough that attacking you is against his character so he gets a new save every round.

Charm animal: Your animal now likes the person who charmed him. It probably won't attack the person who charmed it, even if ordered. It won't attack you even if the person who charmed it tells you to (unless you seriously violated some druids local 704 laws about treating your animal companion) If your mount sees you attacking his new friend he may walk you two apart to cool down or even try to throw you off his back.

The exclusive trick from the animal archive can help it to ignore some commands from charm effects, but probably still won't make the animal attack his new friend.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:


What was it Neitzsche said about nature? Imagine pure indifference as a power. Who would want to live according to that?

The powerful

Shadow Lodge ***

Good reasons to change the location:

The PCs have invalidated the plan and gone off the rails.

Bad reasons to change the location

I want to kill the characters
I want to kill the players.
I want to kill the characters

Its going to happen reasons to change the location

I spent 5 minutes drawing this pretty map and you talked past the encounter. We're fighting the next battle here dammit!

10:30...dammit, store closes at 11. Guess what, this room looks JUST like that one...

The map says you come out at point M and the monster leaves his cave walking west at a steady pace of 30 feet a round. PCs leaving the venture captains office at 10:45 heading east. At what point do the two monsters mee..screw it, you're here.

The map says you're here, the text says you're here,

I got the scenario this morning. you're fighting a shadow in the bungalow...oh no wait, it says you're fighting a shadow and grindylow...

Ok, to draw the next room on the map i need to extend the map onto your core rulebook there.. don't move your elbow the marker will wash out tomorrow, promise..

Shadow Lodge ***

Grats~!

Shadow Lodge ***

Tabletop Giant wrote:


It should also always be an 'optional' thing for a GM to do, so that any GM who is feeling overburdened does not feel a mandatory obligation.

Good luck!

As much as I want to avoid looking like a pack mule tommorow, VOs ARE going to feel obligated to do this when people ask, and probably get people angry if they refuse.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:

Regarding the Expanded Narrative boon, that's something I'm willing to explore making more commonly available. One advantage of convention boons is that they allow the campaign to test out an idea, use it more if it works, or discontinue it if it doesn't without causing too much damage. So far the feedback I've heard about the Expanded Narrative boon is "This shouldn't be a convention boon" or "This should be a GM boon," which by omission seems to say "Otherwise, this boon works fairly well with the exception of those issues."

Is that accurate?

Yes.

I know that replays are a contentious issue and the star thing was going to be a dipping the toes in for a trial period, but having not seen the dreaded candiru of LFR the star replays eventually refresh is something that really should be a reward for all dms.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:


Which means it's nonsense of course, but a different type of nonsense.

Which means its nonsense harder to prove, since the universe doesn't correct errors in moral understanding but it will often correct physical ones... painfully.

And they wonder why I hate philosophy...

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:


Dropping back to a 6th century agrarian economy would itself be a disaster, since such an economy couldn't possibly support or feed our current population. That's obviously out of the question.

Wouldn't help anyway. We messed up the planet with fire and pointy sticks.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bennybeck Wabbittracks wrote:
Homosexuality in and of itself is not an abomination. The act itself, it is argued, is against the Natural Law since the sexual act of two same sex people cannot bring forth life.

Natural law is completely vacuous as an argument.

Natural law means 1 of two things. Either "nature does it this way" or "I don't like it therefore its bad"

The first is not only a specific logical fallacy its not even true. Lots of animals including doll sheep, geraffs, dogs, and most of our primate cousins will do the horizontal polka with members of the same sex. (and in the later case, the horizontal polka, the vertical polka, the inclined polka, the times sign polka, the division sign polka...)

Lots of things in nature are horrifyingly evil. Lots of things in nature are beautifully good. Holding nature as a form of morality is thus rather silly.

The second is entirely circular. You don't like it so its not natural law, therefore you like it because its unnatural. Its a standard appealing to itself, not something objective, rational, or sensible.

Shadow Lodge

"But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice."

Little melodramatic isn't it?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The short answer is that there are people who want to argue against global warming and that they NEED a conspiracy theory to even pretend there's an argument.

Shadow Lodge

Krensky wrote:
Yeah, but avoiding to the same source we're going to hell for wearing cotton-polyester blends.

Reading that part figuratively is how they justified the ban on interracial marriage.

It WAS figurative though.. but with jews and anyone else.

Shadow Lodge ***

Tetsunjinoni wrote:
Since it was obviously not clear, I was asserting that Expanded Narrative is about the level of recharging that is good for the campaign, and that VO distribution of Expanded Narrative seems like a good compromise plan... (And a hopefully not undue level of burden on the VOs in question)

He may not dm at cons enough to have heard the name of it.

Basic functionality of the DM stars shouldn't be tied to one form of DMing.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If something is obscure enough not to remember, i just write the source on the chronicle sheet where i bought it.

Shadow Lodge ***

Nefreet wrote:
But, the creature effectively had Hardness 20 (10 vs the arrow, and 10 vs the fire)

I could see doing it that way or considering the flaming arrow the same source.

Shadow Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
Big Norse Wolf, Lets separate the legal arguments form the issues.

Ok, lets. The vast majority of your post doesn't do that. The vast majority of it are quips snipes, insults, that try to ignore the legal argument.

[]quotea] church that does not accept gay marriage should not be forced or coerced by the state into dong so.

.. Is anyone arguing otherwise?

Quote:
Marriage is not mentioned in the US Construction, therefore it is covered by the 10th amendment which states anything not enumerated in the Construction is reserved for the states.

And because the southern states thought that that meant they could just pass laws to stop black people from voting, moving, or living we got the 14h ammendment which means that anything that the states do for one class of citizen they HAVE to do for all classes.

Quote:
Therefore States laws on marriage should be left for the states so the case in point should not have had standing to be heard in the federal courts.

-States are constitutionally bound not to discriminate.

-States do not have first amendment rights. People do.

Quote:
Does the 14th amendment trump the 1st or 10th amendment. The liberals on the court simply do not respect the free exercise clause of the first amendment, they recoil from it like a vampire recoils from a cross.

Calling people evil vampires is not focusing on the law or the facts.

Quote:
Like the chief justice said in his dissent the case did not have a Construction leg to stand on it was decided on the agenda of the 4 liberal justices felt and their social agenda.

Then please tell me whats wrong with my argument in the law for this case

State allows strait marriage.
State is not allowed to discriminate
State has to allow gay marriage.

Quote:
Marriage for all is the law of the land now and the gay militants should be happy and celebrate a good victory and should leave the religious people alone.

... their M-16 has the anodized rainbow finish? I didn't see any of those on CNN....

Quote:
Be happy with their married partners and stop triing to force the religious to accept their life style because that is not going to happen.

Look at your grandfather, who probably had a problem with interracial marriage.

Replace all of your arguments with interracial instead of homosexual. They're the same.

Now look into the future and look to your grandkid. When he looks back at you, he's going to see the same thing that you see looking at your grandpa.

Quote:

Now everyone can be happily married to a partner of their choosing.

Enjoy it and celebrate it with your friends and family.

Meh. I'm happy because my friends are happy and fox news is having an apoplexy. On a good day its in that order...

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Woot! an extra second to pack for dexcon.

I'll be judging there, along with Valory and Dave Santana.

So... what can you pack in a second?

All the underwear ill need

Shadow Lodge ***

Nefreet wrote:

Ack. Wow. That's not what any of us thought it was.

So, Alchemist Fire is completely ineffective against Hardness 10?

Unless you're fighting a wood golem, probably

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How does hardness work for creatures? Does energy damage such as cold deal half damage to creatures with hardness (Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook 173-174) even before applying the flat numerical reduction?
When a creature with hardness sustains damage, subtract its hardness from the damage dealt. The rules for halving damage, doubling damage, dealing damage with ineffective tools, immunities, and the like only apply to damaging inanimate objects.
(This is apparently a question the Design Team has received a few times during the development of Iron Gods, so they were ready to go with an answer!)

Year of the Sky Key Q&A

Shadow Lodge ***

Shifty wrote:
Michael_Hopkins wrote:
Then again, I may have a slight hobby of taking long walks with 30ish pounds strapped to my back, so I'm a bit used to having some extra weight strapped to my back.

I have a very similar hobby - just with heavier loads strapped to my back as I hoof it great distances...

That said, I am not keen on that weight being just roleplaying books :p

You have trained kangaroos with pouches. Thats cheating.

Shadow Lodge

Woot! an extra second to pack for dexcon.

Shadow Lodge

It is if you read the first line and stop :)

Shadow Lodge

Grey Lensman wrote:


This as well, as I know at least one state is considering trying to circumvent the ruling by no longer issuing any marriage certificates at all.

Not that worried about it.

Oddly enough when the government is a twit to everybody rather than just a minority people don't like, people tend to change their government rather quickly.

Shadow Lodge ***

Sniff

Shadow Lodge

Auxmaulous wrote:
Maybe I'm misreading "no state make or enforce law which shall abridge" or it could be the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" part that is confusing me

That would be a different argument for a different topic thats contentious enough on its own. As far as I know, this was not the argument being advanced on the gay marriage issue. It was a matter of equality about how states treated their own people differently.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I'm responding to the argument you posted, where you seemed to have not quite gotten the pro marriage equality argument.

Whats the legal argument for the feds to override what was previously a State right?

Let me know in one post (or less).

Maine has to allow gay marriage because Maine allows strait marriage.

Maine does not have to allow gay marriage because New york allows gay marriage.

When the state does not treat one member of their own state like they treat other members of their own state equally they're in violation of the 14th ammendment. So it doesn't matter how many waterballoons New york allows vs how many montana allows, as long as each state lets all citizens of that state have the same number of water balloons they're not in breach of the equal protection clause.

The 14th ammendment means that discrimination is no longer a states right.

Shadow Lodge

Auxmaulous wrote:
You should be telling that to the SCOTUS instead of posting it here.

I'm responding to the argument you posted, where you seemed to have not quite gotten the pro marriage equality argument. I haven't taken any tub time with a copy of the minority's opinion so I don't know if they did the same thing.

Shadow Lodge

Auxmaulous wrote:

The logic is (for those having trouble with it):

1) A permit - tied to an established right..
2) Which varies from State to State in enforcement or even if they are issued at all..
3) Should have uniformity with all other States already issuing said permits tied to the established right.

No, it should be uniform within the state regardless of the person applying for it. Thats what equal treatment under the law means, the same way it applies to any other permit or right.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Best retirement arc ever. Good luck!

Shadow Lodge ***

I don't see why PfS and LFR would be so different that something that went badly in LFR would not go the same way in PFS.

But it was LFR's unlimited replay for credit that caused the problem, not all replay. If you have limites in place then it might work.

Shadow Lodge ***

Drogon wrote:
To be clear, here is that quote's (updated) context: Even though I have run that many games for that many years through my single location (and am about to double the number of games run by opening a second location) I have only three times seen replay be resorted to as a final option to get a player a seat. I am well over 1000 games coordinated, and am well under a 1% replay rate with my players.

Multiple tables and a larger group make that a lot easier. If there are three tables schedueled and one collapses you have a better chance of getting into something you can replay with 2 tables left than one.

If you have three scenarios left you can play in a large group you can find three other people with the exact same three left.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:


So what (groups of) people do you think should be deprived of the civil rights enjoyed by everyone else?

Its not a matter of the groups themselves. I'm not entirely convinced that getting a non necessity from another private individual is a civil right. I very much do not believe that just because its a business it automatically scoots into the public sphere.

Thejeffs comments about the inability to separate out a necessity from a non necessity is making me feel a little bit better about the laws.

Quote:
I would hate to think that you feel that, unless some law specifically names a person or group as protected from invidious discrimination, it should be acceptable to discriminate against them.

It shouldn't be acceptable but that doesn't necessarily follow that it should be illegal. LOTS of things i find unacceptable are legal. Handing someone power to bridge that divide sounds great.. as long as that someone is you or they believe the same thing that you do. I mean do you really want to see me seize ultimate power and put whales in congress? The cost of the tanks alone...

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I was just thinking I could make my Goblin Tank Build for PFS. I was reviewing the Additional Resources section of this site, and I think my plan is legal, but if any of you spot a problem, I would appreciate it. Even if I argue with you, I will appreciate it.

I was thinking that instead of making my character a Goblin, make him a human, and take the Racial Heritage Trait, applying the Goblin race. Then he can take those lovely Goblin Feats like Roll with It and Tangle Feet.

Am I missing something, or is this the way to get Goblin Feats in PFS?

I'm 99% sure that doesn't work. You should ask on the pfs boards though

Additional resources limits most goblin options to goblin pcs. If you're not a goblin, they're not on your additional resources list

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


Pirate Rob actually proved otherwise.

The problem is you don't hit critical mass when you run out of scenarios. You hit critical mass when you run out of scenarios you can reasonably schedule to play with other people.

Shadow Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:

BNW,

You mean like they already do for racial, sexual and religious discrimination in providing services? That horse has long bolted.

I agree that IF we're going to do that for groups of people that need protection LGBT should be on the list. I would just like it seen as an emergency stop gap measure that we have to do because the situation is serious not as another every day exercise of government power.

I don't think I want the horse back in the barn (yet.. and probably never in my lifetime) but I don't want everyone galloping their horse down the road either.

Shadow Lodge

Urban barbarian mouser swashbuckler unchained rogue Kitsune in fox form

Waltz into someone's space

-4 to hit anyone but you.

Sneak attack them (you only need someone adjacent) -4 to hit you, -6 to hit anyone else.

Shadow Lodge

Yuugasa wrote:


It is a really unpleasant experience, like really unpleasant. I'm honestly not sure how to explain it well.

Your assumptions would be incorrect in some cases.

If you want me to boycott the store I'll shop elsewhere
If you want me to protest the store, I'll get a sign.
If the protest gets rough I'll play meatshield right in front of the doggies.
If you want to spraypaint something on the roof I'll give you a boost (I'm a little large and old to get up there myself these days)

But the power of government ultimately comes out of the barrel of a gun. I'm not entirely ok with it being used for feelings.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Incendiaeternus wrote:
It's been already brought up each year the weight increase is about 12lbs.

Like 73% of statistics that was made up on the spot.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Victor Zajic wrote:
he reason PFS has banned evil character is not because the Society rejects evil characters, it is because having an evil alignment has been used very often as an excuse not to play well with the others at the table. It's to promote unity and cooperation, not to punish wickedness.

oh come on, we all know its because the ten didn't want the competition... :)

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheJeff wrote:
2) People are forced to act against their conscience in the course of their jobs all the time, particularly when their conscience compels them to discriminate against others. We have public accommodation laws for precisely this reason.

While I am taking entirely too much enjoyment in watching fox news turn purple and can understand the need for government intrusion so that people can get food, shelter, and housing I don't see the compelling government interest to force twits to do business with people they don't want to for luxury items like flowers.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe Ducey wrote:
Or give every store a display copy with no code, and seal the rest.

I don't think most smaller stores distinguish between display and inventory.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:


BNW: You honestly got ALL THAT from "independent research"???

No. As you should be able to see from above it came from that and several of your quotes.

You're alleging a conspiracy. Thats how far the conspiracy would have to go. That's how far you would have to remove people to sever all ties with the conspiracy.

Quote:
Sorry, but that is downright ludicrous. *giggles*

Yes it is. If you're seeing a planters peanut its because my goal of holding up a mirror up to your ideas is starting to bear fruit.

In theory, everything I've listed is the only way to counter your concerns

In practice, someone would just make claims about these new groups with absolutely no basis in fact and you amd many others would wholeheartedly believe them with the same fervor that you continue to believe that Greenpeace slaughters kangaroos.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:

-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.

"Doing some reading up on it, I find that more or less everyone at the top levels of the Climate Lobby is a former or current member of Greenpeace or the WWF. Greenpeace were the guys who sent out actors to club seals and torture kangaroos for money to "raise awareness" in the nineties."

-They have no relationships with any existing universities

So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.

-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.

So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.

-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.

So, what is needed is INDEPENDENT research. After a serious investigation of the manners of research in the current climatology field and some serious transparency work, the field could start producing interesting results again.

-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data

b) nobody remains working in climatology that doesn't toe the official line. I find 3% dissenting is a VERY high figure, given the above

(nasa works in climatology. Therefore....)

-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo

The scientists support the doomsayings and grabs of influence of the certain people, and the certain people provide for grants for the scientists, through various state administrations.

-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the professors involved in the old research.. but since professors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't receive any training at all.

You want PHD candidates doing actual research you need them to pass the classes and get their doctorates. If your hermetically sealed scientists go through a selection process overseen by AGW scientists in on a conspiracy/cult/cerfufle you will get more AGW scientists.

-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.

" Climategate is a big deal
", redefinition of the peer-review process,

-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own

Independent, again.

I thought this one would be obvious.

-and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.

But if science is not by itself interested in the politics of the issue, and it is not, then again, why tolerate the IPCC?

OH, and to top it off, they have to pull off these miracles AND THEN have the media faithfully report it to the American public without any oversimplification.

Shadow Lodge

D oh, deciding your evidence by your position rather than the other way around

Shadow Lodge

So its only real science if...

-The environmental scientists have no relationships with any environmental groups.

-They have no relationships with any existing universities

-The project is not funded by any environmental group, government, or university thats ever done this before. Its funding is going to come from.. somewhere.

-The scientists don't use any "Tainted" data so.. no data ever, they have to collect all of their own on a world wide basis starting now so they'll have something useful in 50 t0 100 years.

-They can't use nasa's tainted satalites, because nasa is in on the fix and might alter their data

-They'll have to collect their own core samples, replicating decades of research ex nillo

-None of the new hermetically sealed scientists can recieve training from any of the proffessors involved in the old research.. but since proffessors are research scientsts that pretty much means they can't recieve any training at all.

-nothing they say can be taken out of context as saying something else, ever.

-They can't read any books written by global warming advocates, so they can't get training on their own

and last but not least, if the scientists reach a conclusion that something terrible is about to happen anyway they have to shut up about it so they don't taint their pure acedemia of the work.

No. Other. Field of science or human endeavor has ever been held to that standard. None. Its beyond unrealistic. Its whole heartedly throwing yourself into the arms of epistemic nihlism and ONLY for one side of the issue and only for one issue. It's deciding your position by the evidence rather than the other way around.

Its worse than the David Chapelle "Reasonable doubt" skit.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

These "alternatives" have already been brought up. Year after year. They're nothing new, and they were around when Mike Brock issued the ruling I quoted above.

What new reasoning do people have?

When you argue X, and ruling Y is given in response, continuing to argue X won't do you any good.

the extra 12 pounds of books produced this year adds yet more increasing weight to the argument that an alternate system is needed.

Shadow Lodge

Sissyl wrote:

In Sweden, we had TREE DEATH!!! in the eighties. We had massive numbers of trees just dying off, and the environmentalists of the time wasted no time connecting this to pollution, acid rain and so on. They staged protests where they blocked main throughfares in our cities, screaming "TREE MURDERERS!!!" to people driving cars, and so on.

The movement ended in time, as the people involved found other things to scream about (clubbed seals was big, and also paid for by Greenpeace). However, in the mid nineties, someone actually did a serious follow-up and found that some moron who was responsible for buying up massive numbers of plants from plant schools in Germany had forgotten to check the cold tolerance of the various plants they bought. Sweden has winters, most of the time anyway, and the trees couldn't cope.

What was the scientific consensus on the tree die off?

(also note this is one reason why the native gardening thing took off)

Shadow Lodge

Scott Bentts wrote:
Oh god you're complaining about having to deal with small cars?

I crammed into the back seat of a prius once. When i shifted positions the car tried to turn.

1 to 50 of 21,436 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.